The conviction of Alexander William Holmes
If I were the jury proceeding over the conviction of Alexander William Holmes, I would have keenly disagreed over the decision of the conviction. The main purpose of my decision would be on the question of justifiable manslaughter, which lied on the looming of harm. If I were the jury, I would have placed myself in Holmes’s situation and try to think of a better idea in such a situation in which someone leads to no other way that the one Holmes took. The judge argues that sailors have to ensure the sailors; however, this is not the only belief that can view Holme’s actions. In my interpretation, Holmes sacrifices one group over the other. The sailors who left on a different boat were supposed to ensure the remaining ones’ safety and not risk their lives and leave the passengers stranded in the sea. The sailors knew their duties very well and that it was their duty, and that why remain to make sure that the other group was safe.
The situation that Holmes and his crew were in, Holmes’s decision, was more helpful than not acting at all and everybody capsizing. The selection method that was used to determine who were to be thrown overboard was also an issue. Under such circumstances, there was no unfair manner in which people were selected, and nobody was targeted over anyone else. Some of the passengers volunteered to die so that their fellow passengers would live. I believe as jury passengers would not have survived on their own even if Holmes and other sailors would have sacrificed themselves to keep the passages alive. I would not “behold a reasonable doubt” bring myself to a ruling to the conviction of William Holmes as he did what I could also have done if I were in the same situation.
Work cited
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/520/
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/505/